Skip to main content
Glama

IntoDNS.ai DNS & Email Security Scanner

by ai.intodns

create_report_snapshot

Create an immutable evidence snapshot of the current Everything Report for a domain. Returns a snapshot ID, ISO timestamp, SHA-256 content hash, and stable bookmarkable URLs for both JSON and Markdown renderings of the report. Snapshots are write-once and resolve to the same evidence months/years later — useful for tickets, audit trails, NIS2/ISO compliance evidence, and LLM citations that should not drift. A canonical POST creates one snapshot per call (additive and not idempotent); use get_report_snapshot to read it back. Use this instead of get_everything_report when the result must remain stable.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain name only, e.g. example.com (no URL, path, or port)
formatNoReturn the created snapshot as JSON or Markdownjson

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Description discloses write-once nature, additivity, non-idempotency, and that a canonical POST creates one snapshot per call. It complements annotations (idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) with concrete behavioral details like immutable and stable over time. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two densely informative sentences. Front-loads core action, then packs use cases, return values, and usage guidance without fluff. Every phrase adds value; no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema, but the description explicitly lists all return artifacts (snapshot ID, ISO timestamp, SHA-256 hash, bookmarkable URLs for both formats). It also covers stability, compliance use cases, and alternative tools. Sufficient for an agent to understand behavior and expectations fully.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description mentions 'domain' only implicitly and doesn't add parameter-specific guidance beyond schema. Meets baseline for full coverage but doesn't enrich parameter meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the action (create an immutable evidence snapshot) and resource (current Everything Report for a domain). Differentiates from sibling get_everything_report by emphasizing stability and immutability, explicitly telling when to use this instead.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly specifies when to use this tool (for ticketing, audits, compliance, LLM citations) and directs to get_report_snapshot for reading back. Also contrasts with get_everything_report for stable results. Provides clear alternatives and exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All IntoDNS.ai DNS & Email Security Scanner toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, and cross-references between tools (e.g., check_spf vs check_email_security vs check_sender_requirements) explicitly state when to use each one. Overlapping behaviors are carefully delineated (e.g., scan_domain vs get_everything_report vs start_deep_scan) with latency and depth tradeoffs explained. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_*, generate_*, get_*, create_*, scan_*), with precise verbs matching each action. Minor deviations include 'nis2_quickscan' (no verb) and a few compound names like 'whois_lookup', but these are isolated. The variety of verbs is semantically justified by the broad domain, so the naming is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 45 tools, this is far beyond the 16-25 'heavy' range and nearly double the 25 threshold. While the server covers a wide range of DNS, email, and web checks, a 45-tool surface is likely to overwhelm agents and increase selection errors. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., individual check_* tools into one combined check) without sacrificing clarity.

Completeness5/5

The tool set meticulously covers the domain: DNS (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, DNSSEC, propagation, whois), email security (blacklist, FCrDNS, MTA-STS, SMTP TLS, TLSA, BIMI, raw email analysis, test sessions), web security (headers, CSP, HTTP/3), reporting (PDF, snapshots, badges), and compliance (NIS2, Internet.nl deep scans). There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of DNS & email security scanning; every check has a corresponding generator or explainer.

Resources